Local Government

Summary

Miss C complained to the council about the lack of support provided by her son's secondary school to meet his additional support needs. She also complained that her son was subject to ongoing bullying, harassment and intimidation by a member of staff. After making their own investigations, the council partially upheld her complaint about her son's support needs not being met as they found insufficient reviews had been carried out with her son, and his learning plan had not been adjusted to meet his needs. The council did not find any evidence to support allegations against the member of staff.

Miss C was unhappy with this response and complained to us that the council had not reasonably addressed her complaints. We investigated and made further enquiries. We found that the council had made reasonable and appropriate enquiries into her concerns and, on the basis of the information available to them, reached a conclusion. While Miss C was unhappy with the outcome, there was no evidence to show that there had been an administrative fault in the council's consideration and, therefore, the merits of those decisions were not subject to review by us. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Between 2007 and 2012, Mr C said he lived in five different properties in the council's area. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to refund him overpaid council tax at one of the five properties and instead used the money for his outstanding council tax liabilities at the other properties. Mr C questioned the dates the council said he was resident at the properties as he said for much of the time he was in prison.

Our investigation established that the council were entitled to offset an overpayment of council tax at one property to settle an outstanding amount on another property. However, we would have expected the council to take appropriate steps to ensure their calculations were accurate prior to doing so.

The council provided us with copies of the documentary evidence they relied on regarding the dates of Mr C's tenancies and the dates he was in prison. This information was supplied by Mr C and the owners of the properties where he resided and it was therefore reasonable for the council to have relied on this.

However, we had concerns about the council's handling of the issue. There appeared to have been failings in the way in which Mr C's council tax liability was calculated which meant a refund of overpaid council tax may have been payable to Mr C from the outset. There also appeared to have been discrepancies in the start dates for one of Mr C's tenancies and the transfer of monies to this account. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their calculations of Mr C's council tax liability after giving him the opportunity to provide any further documentary evidence of his periods of detention and notify him of any adjustments in his council tax balance; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of Ms A. She said that Ms A had agreed to move out of her property temporarily in order to allow repairs to be carried out. Ms C said that Ms A had been told after she moved out that she would not be allowed to return to the property. In addition she said the council had placed Ms A's possessions in storage without her consent and had not handled them appropriately. Ms C said Ms A had discovered her possessions had been placed in front of her house. She said this included personal possessions, exposing her to ridicule as photographs of them were placed on social media. Ms C said Ms A believed her goods had been intentionally damaged.

Our investigation found that, as Ms A had refused to allow the council access to the property, it was only following her move into temporary accommodation that it could be properly assessed. This assessment found that the property was not fit for habitation and posed a health risk due to severe neglect by Ms A. We found the council had acted appropriately by refusing to allow Ms A to return. Our investigation also found that the council had made it clear to Ms A that her goods would be placed in storage and that her agreement to this was on record. The council had acknowledged that some heavily soiled items of furniture had been left inappropriately outside, however, they had apologised for this. Storage had been provided as soon as possible and the evidence showed the contractors had been careful to identify personal effects, handing them over to the council for safekeeping.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to offer his sister (Ms A) the option of succeeding their father's tenancy on his council property after he had passed away. Mr C said his sister was living with their father prior to his death and should have been allowed to inherit their father's tenancy. Mr C said the council failed to follow their procedures in relation to his sister's application for succession to tenancy. He raised a number of issues in relation to this matter, including that the council failed to carry out house visits, checks and inspections to establish where Ms A had been living prior to their father's death; and failed to consider/accept evidence provided by Ms A in support of her application.

The council's procedure on succession to tenancy stated that the authenticity of the information provided by the applicant on their application form must be checked by carrying out additional investigations/checks. However, the investigations/checks referred to by Mr C and listed in the council's procedure were not mandatory and were a list of the types of checks that could be carried out. The council provided documentary evidence which showed that they carried out several of the checks/investigations suggested. We saw no evidence that the council failed to consider the evidence provided by Ms A in support of her application. The council advised that the information provided by Ms A had been taken into account. However, they said that other evidence, which included information provided by neighbours and investigations carried out by housing staff, was considered to be stronger and more reliable. It was not our role to determine what weight should be placed on any particular evidence: that was the discretionary decision of the council.

The evidence suggested that the council followed their procedure when dealing with Ms A's succession to tenancy application. Therefore, we did not consider that the council unreasonably failed to offer Ms A the option of succeeding her father's tenancy.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council that trees at the rear of her property were blocking sunlight into her back garden. Ms C was not happy with the council's response, and so she complained to us that the council failed to prune or remove the trees, and about the council's handling of her complaint.

We found that the council's tree and woodland management policy, while acknowledging that trees could create inconvenience for residents, stated that, as a general rule, pruning or removal works would not be carried out due to restriction of sunlight, unless it was judged to be excessive. In the professional opinion of council officers who assessed the trees the restriction was not excessive, taking into account the health of the trees and their position. Ms C disagreed with this assessment. However, we explained to Ms C that her disagreement was not evidence of a failing on the part of the council, and that it was not for us to determine whether there was excessive sunlight restriction. We did not uphold this complaint.

We had some concerns about the time taken by the council to respond to Ms C's complaint, about the records kept by the council about site visits to the trees, and about the level of detail and explanation in the council's final response to Ms C. We also found that the council's written responses to Ms C did not explicitly deal with the key issue of restriction of sunlight. Therefore, on balance, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff that written replies to complaints must explicitly respond to the key issue(s) raised.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council that trees at the rear of her property were blocking sunlight into her back garden. Ms C was not happy with the council's response, and so she complained to us that the council failed to prune or remove the trees, and about the council's handling of her complaint.

We found that the council's tree and woodland management policy, while acknowledging that trees could create inconvenience for residents, stated that, as a general rule, pruning or removal works would not be carried out due to restriction of sunlight, unless it was judged to be excessive. In the professional opinion of council officers who assessed the trees, the restriction was not excessive, taking into account the health of the trees and their position. Ms C disagreed with this assessment. However, we explained to Ms C that her disagreement was not evidence of a failing on the part of the council, and that it was not for us to determine whether there was excessive sunlight restriction.

We had some concerns about the time taken by the council to respond to Ms C's complaint, about the records kept by the council about site visits to the trees, and about the level of detail and explanation in the council's final response to Ms C. However, on balance, we were satisfied that the council's handling of Ms C's complaint was reasonable in the circumstances, as it responded to the key issue of the restriction of sunlight, in keeping with the council's policy. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C shared a private driveway with two rented properties. When she experienced problems with access because of the way the tenants parked their cars, she found that there was no landlord registration. She wrote to the council about her concerns. She said the council were not doing enough to address the issues she had raised. She then experienced further problems when a blocked drain at the rented property caused an overflow of sewage onto her driveway and she contacted the council about this matter too. After lengthy and detailed correspondence with the council about her dissatisfaction, the council referred her to our office.

Our investigation considered all the correspondence between Ms C and the council, the council's records of contact with her, and the actions they took, as well as the relevant legislation. We found that the council had reasonably responded and addressed the matters she raised. However, we also noted that it was not always clear how the council were dealing with her complaints in terms of their complaints handling procedure, and we recommended that the council address this aspect.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure complaints are accurately identified from the outset and complaints handling procedures are clearly communicated.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council's decision not to allow her child to delay starting primary school. Mrs C was concerned that her original application for this had not been considered and that the council were unaware of this error until she raised it with them. Mrs C did not consider that the council had provided her with accurate information about delaying entry to primary one, or that they had shown that a proper assessment of her child's needs had been carried out. Mrs C also complained that the council had not followed their complaints handling procedure.

Following our investigation, we upheld Mrs C's complaint that the council had not dealt with her application properly and noted that they had already provided her with an apology for this. We found that there was no system in place to confirm that all applications submitted via schools had been logged at the council's central pupil placement department. We upheld Mrs C's complaint about the information she was provided with as we found that this was confusing and lacked clarity. The complaint about the handling of her concerns was also upheld. We found that the council had already acknowledged this failing and apologised to Mrs C.

After considering her concerns about the assessment of her child's needs, we found that there was evidence that this had taken place and, although this could have been better communicated to Mrs C by the council, we did not uphold this part of her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• consider the introduction of a system to confirm with schools that all submitted applications have been logged by the pupil placement department;
• confirm that the difference between deferment and a retained year will be clearly explained in the next revision of their guidance;
• consider the benefits of separating the deferment and retained year application process to avoid confusion in future;
• ensure that accurate information about routes for resolution is provided at an early stage;
• ensure that the reasoning and final decisions reached on such applications are formally recorded; and
• raise awareness amongst staff in the education department of the definition of a complaint and when their complaints handling procedure should be used.

Summary

Ms C and her family lived in a property that needed some work done that could not be carried out with tenants in the property. She was offered a temporary property to live in whilst the work was being carried out, but Ms C said she had asked if she could be considered for a permanent house move. She said that the council had initially agreed to this. When Ms C's request for a permanent housing transfer was turned down, she complained to us.

The council's tenancy policy states that a tenant may be relocated temporarily to allow the council to carry out work, but tenants will then return to their permanent tenancy following completion of work. The policy also sets out the (separate) system whereby points are allocated to determine eligibility for council housing. We found that the council had sought other options such as bed and breakfast accommodation for the duration of the works, which was beyond what they were required to do. We also found that Ms C and her partner were not eligible for a permanent housing transfer. Although we recognised that this was a stressful experience involving upheaval for Ms C and her family, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her father (Mr A). When Mr A moved out of his property, the council had sent him a bill for rechargeable repairs. Mrs C appealed the bill. The council told her that the charges were accurate and that she had completed their complaints procedure.

When Mrs C brought her complaint to us, we asked the council for a copy of their final complaint response. The council told us that the complaint had not been logged or responded to in line with the complaints procedure. In the circumstances, we referred Mrs C back to the council for them to provide a full and final position, and closed the complaint.

Mrs C then returned to our office. We found that the council had still not responded to her complaint and so we upheld her complaint that it had not been reasonably handled. We made recommendations to address this.

However, regarding the charge for repairs, we found that Mr A had told the council he wanted the repairs completed and agreed to them being recharged to him. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• reflect on why Mrs C's complaint was not responded to appropriately and how to prevent this in future;
• remind the staff involved in this case of the complaints procedure; and
• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified.